Multiple service operator (MSO) networks and/or customer networks conventionally forward data in packets. These packets include, among other things, information related to the manner in which the packet is to be forwarded. For example, in a conventional IPv4 packet, eight bits (i.e., one byte) are allocated to a differentiated services field (i.e. the type of service (TOS) byte), which specifies any preferences for how the packet should be handled as it is forwarded through a network. Particularly, the differentiated services byte may indicate whether the packet should be forwarded with or without special packet handling features, including, but not limited to packet recovery if the packet is lost or corrupted during transmission. The manner in which packets are delivered is commonly divided into traffic class identifications, which typically include “best-effort” delivery and quality of service (QoS) delivery. When a packet is forwarded without special handling features, such a delivery priority is conventionally referred to as best-effort delivery. Additionally, no receipt confirmation or delivery guarantees are provided by the network when best-effort delivery is implemented. Alternatively, a delivery priority wherein the packets are forwarded with special handling features is conventionally referred to as QoS delivery. In either case, the differentiated services byte indicates how the packet is to be handled during delivery.
Although the conventional networks have adopted an approach to packet delivery that enables differential treatment for different service levels within a single network, there exists a wide horizon for improvement in treatment of internetworking packets. Specifically, it is common for packets to be forwarded between a MSO and its transit internet service provider (ISP), between a Tier 1 and a Tier 2 ISPs, between a MSO and its business customer networks, and/or between peering MSO networks. However, most networks have unique traffic class identifications and bit mappings that differ from other peering networks. For example, one MSO may have a bit configuration whose corresponding traffic class identification indicates best-effort delivery, while the same bit configuration at a peering network has a corresponding traffic class identification that indicates a particular delivery priority. Accordingly, a bit configuration for a packet in one network may receive high priority delivery while the same bit configuration receives best effort delivery in a peering network. Thus, there is a need for a system and method of delivering packets across network boundaries in a manner that enables accurate packet delivery treatment.
The present invention was conceived in view of these and other disadvantages of conventional communications systems.